Woman asked to stop breastfeeding at YMCA

An Ann Arbor, Michigan woman was asked
to stop breastfeeding her 6-month-old daughter in the swimming area of the Y while her older son had his swimming
lesson. The program director says she was asked to stop because there is no food or drink allowed in the pool area and
exceptions cannot be made. The mother says she was told breastfeeding by the pool created a distraction for the
lifeguards.

I wonder who's telling the truth, I have a feeling it was the "distraction", but
here's two words for the lifeguards: "Grow. Up." Michigan exempts breastfeeding from public nudity statutes,
however a woman's right to breastfeed in public places is not protected by legislation.

Update: Reader 'Granny' has left a comment linking to more in
depth article from the Ann Arbor News.

Breastfeeding Your Older ChildFull Segment: Many people believe that whenever possible, breastfeeding is best for babies. But many moms stop after infancy. Should mothers continue to nurse their toddlers or school-age children? Breastfeeding moms will share why they nurse for years.

ReaderComments (Page 2 of 3)

From what I understood, her son was in a swim class. I could be wrong about this of course.

The thought of having to remove my child and his friend from the pool, dry them off and have them sit with me while I fed a baby in the locker room, all of us dripping wet.

I understand and respect your point of view but feel very strongly as a bottle feeding mother that the best way to insure that women breastfeed their children is to make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

I fail to see the 'health and sanitary issues' of a baby putting it's lips to it's mother's breast and drinking from it. There are much much worse things in that pool. Trust me.

Let's step back and call it nursing instead of brestfeeding. We don't know how much milk was being dispensed. Nor should we care. The woman was comforting her child in a reasonable manner. The lifeguard over-reacted and caused the distraction, not the mother.

No. In general I think breastfeeding mothers should be allowed to feed their babies where ever bottlefeeding mothers are.

In this case, the YMCA may want to consider making an acception forbabes in arms drinking breast or bottled milk on the deck of the pool.Catering to parents of small children is not a crime. The validity of the argument for not eating or drinking on the pool deck may not apply to babies. It is possible for reasonable people to evaluate the rules and provide for different cases.

And please don't use the 'If we let a baby eat on the deck of the poolpretty soon EVERYONE is going to want to eat at the pool!!!!' It smacksof, 'If we let gays get married, pretty soon people will be marryingdogs!'

You seem to think that by reading the comments made by Diane Carr to the Ann Arbor News that you know the whole story. Well, you don't.

When Kelly first spoke to Diane on the phone to ask why she was told at the front desk it was ok and then embarassed by a lifeguard who later told her to stop, Diane told her that breastfeeding by the pool was "... a distraction to the young lifeguards." Yes, I was there holding Ansley and helping Max finish dinner when this conversation took place. The "food and drink" excuse was never mentioned until the media got involved.

Interesting comments. I've been a regular Ann Arbor Y user for quite some time, and I've seen mothers nurse their babies throughout the building, without raising the concern of either staff or members. I don't spend much time in the pool area, so I can't comment directly on that, but I do believe that there's probably more to this story than meets the eye. I have known the Ann Arbor YMCA to be nothing but family-friendly, and to go out of its way to provide programs and services for parents of young children and babies. I wonder if Fuks and others might be more effective if they directed their campaign against organizations which truly and clearly discriminate against nursing mothers.

MelissaS, Kelly's position throughout has been that this is about a baby's right to eat anywhere it has a right to be (based on the American Acadamy of Pediatrics recommendation), but much of the focus has been on the breast feeding aspect. I think channel 7 news did broadcast Kelly saying so.

Y user, We were and still are confused by the way this was handled. Maxwell took multiple infant swimming classes, and Kelly nursed him as needed in the pool area without comment. That was why she called the Y for clarification, thinking maybe the lifeguard was mis-informed.

Kelly then told a few of her friends who had enrolled in the on-going infant swim class (and who had all nursed in the pool/deck area at the Y in the past), so they wouldn't suffer the same embarassment. Someone, without Kelly's knowledge or consent, posted the story on a user group... that led a reporter to contact the Y for a statement. Kelly then decided she should tell her side of the story. The news article prompted the TV news to jump in.

The Y still hasn't apologized to Kelly for the original incident. And yes, when someone on your staff tells a customer it's ok and then another person calls them out publicly (this was not a discreet whisper in her ear or tell her on the way out notification by the lifeguard), an apology is due.

We continue to look for signage in/near the pool area that says no food/drink/feeding. Pls advise if you can tell us where it is posted.

And have you been to the gym during the week around 5p? It's a zoo in the locker room where Kelly is now taking Ansley and Maxwell when Ansley needs to eat.

"The point is that the rule is a rule and an exception for one will invariable lead to an exception for another."

This is what is known as a slippery slope argument, a common logical fallacy. So long as they put fluoride in the water, eventually they'll add iron, and iodide, and vitamin c, and then SEDATIVES! So long as we allow abortion in the first trimester, soon we'll allow abortion until the date of birth, and then we'll allow outright INFANTICIDE! If we allow women to breastfeed or bottlefeed their infants at the pool, something which causes no hazards to anybody, then pretty soon we'll be having chip bags in the water and people eating seven course dinners while floating on plastic rafts, right?

I see no reason to believe that a reasonable exception (No food except for children under the age of (say) 12 months drinking from the breast or bottle) would lead to such absurdities.

Please!!!! tell me this woman DID NOT stop FEEDING her baby. My goodness some people kill me with the 'breastfeeding' is a distraction crap. Urrgh!!! I'm sooooooo glad I wasn't the mom because I would have set it off in there! Give me a break already!

My core arguement and the argument that I still hold onto is that this is a very simple rule, posted or no. No food or drink by the pool means no food or drink by the pool. I still believe that a major problem with our society and parents EPECIALLY (of which I am one) is that many people feel they have a right to do as they please and no one is willing to be inconveinenced, at all, for any reason,in this day and age.

I agree with the lactivist who said that there are better fights than this one.

I spoke with the Vice President of Operations at the Y today, and he told me that there have been three instances in which mothers have been asked to stop nursing. In each case, the issue was not that they were nursing, but that they left their other children unattended to do so, which is (rightly) in violation of pool rules. I was told that in the case currently under discussion, the mother left her 3 year old in the pool while she nursed, and that this was what alerted the lifeguard. I certainly don't want to turn this discussion into a round of "he said/she said," but this would be more consistent with the Y I know. As I mentioned before, I've seen nursing mothers all over the Y, and I've never been aware of even the slightest concern on the part of either members or staff.

1) Besides her breast feeding she left a 3 year old in the pool unattended and that?s what originally got the lifeguards attention.

2)I breastfeed my child and I am sorry but if they allow breast feeding what stops a mom from bringing a bottle and then what stops it from being a glass bottle. Just because a mother can not breastfeed she should not be punished by not being allowed to feed her child. So if bottle feeding need to follow the rule so should breastfeeding since they are doing the exact same thing.

3) There is a discrete way of breast feeding and I have contacted the YMCA and they allow breastfeeding everywhere except in the pool area and on the treadmills. Man if she is fighting to be in the pool area to breastfeed why is she not fighting to be on the machines!! and trust me the Y is a big place, so there is enough room to do it somewhere else. I have had to take my two children out of the pool to the changing area to breast feed and that means I had three children to deal with and I had no problem. Hmm and she only had two.

4)Having been a lifeguard myself they deal with more bodily fluids than any one will ever know but the thing is when you come in and see a pool closed or park of the deck closed that is what they are dealing with. So don't go into the whole "ban babies" until you know how facilities operate and deal with situations.

5) Get the facilities story. Until each one of you have seen both sides of the story you have no room to talk....

"My core arguement and the argument that I still hold onto is that this is a very simple rule, posted or no. No food or drink by the pool means no food or drink by the pool."

Interestingly, I understand that argument - and I have a view about What's Wrong with the World Today as well.

Too many people think that the rules are something to be followed simply because they are the rules, and not because they have any value outside of that. There is value in not allowing people to eat cake at the pool.

There is no value in not allowing them to breast or bottlefeed their baby - other than a dogmatic addiction to following The Rules.

Ah, but there is value in intervening when someone leaves their child unattended in the pool, and it appears that that's what really happened here. How many people posting here are actually members of the Y, or have taken the time to clarify what happened there? As I've mentioned a couple of times now, I've seen no evidence that the Y is anti-nursing. What I have seen here is a handful of parents who, rather than taking the time to investigate on their own, choose to ignore details that don't corroborate their alarmist and revisionist version of what happened. Tsk tsk.

"Too many people think that the rules are something to be followed simply because they are the rules, and not because they have any value outside of that. There is value in not allowing people to eat cake at the pool."

Uly - you are the prime examplke of what I am talking about. I'm all for fighting injustice and changing/breaking rules that need it. However, in the expanse of the YMCA there are one or two areas where a woman can't feed her baby. There are other places where she CAN feed her baby. Why is it so hard to figure this one out? Yes means yes and no means no. No one is going to be hurt if she can't feed her baby poolside and others may be hurt if feeding IS allowed poolside. Your argument has no value other than the fact that you disagree with a rule that would possibly cause some inconvenience to you at some point in your life. This is not a case of dogmatically following "The Rules", its a case where an exception isn't allowed and its as simple as that. Thats what is grinding your gears Uly, you want to make an exception to a rule where one can not be made. Do you think that bottle feeding mothers wouldn't demand to be able to feed their babies poolside if moms can nurse? It is not a logical fallacy, it is simply logical.

These posts are filled with contradicting details about the supposed "facts" of this situation and I disregard those pieces of information. All we know for certain is that A. the Y told her she couldn't feed her kid by the pool and B. she wanted to. and C. another option was given that was not satisfactory to her. End of story. This is a rare black and white issue and I am often accused of seeing too many shades of gray in an argument but this seems pretty clear to me.

You are entitled to your opionion. When you say not a big deal, try it some time.

Last week my family went to the pool. All six of us. The girls are 5, 7, & 9 and can swim while I watch. Nicky is 15 months old. We stayed at the poll for about three hours. After Nicky was tired, I found a lawn chair and relaxed by the pool as the girls continued to play. I saw at least four other moms nursing by the pool while I was there.

Sounds nice. We had a great time.

Let's try it the other way. And let's say my darling hubby didn't come along. That would mean that I had to round up all three girls out of the pool, take them into the cold locker room wet, and have them sit quietly while I nurse. And then again later when he wanted a snack, and then again. Oh, that's right, if that were the case, I wouldn't have gone to the pool at all.

There is no where that I can not nurse. I do not believe that even in a private home that someone has the right to limit my food choices for my child. I would leave and never return.

The link to that well written paper explains why it is absurb to tell moms not to nurse by the pool. If they are allowed to swim, nursing does not increase the hazard. Telling moms not to nurse is discrimination. Telling them not to swim would be unheard of. Telling them not to nurse, actually puts more milk in the pool.

I'm tired of being told it's not a problem to go use that other drinking fountain.

Sue, I think you're only including part of the story. Let's say your darling hubby doesn't come along, but, since there are no restrictions on whether you leave your kids unattended in the pool, whatever the reason. You're sitting nursing your 15 month old, when you notice a commotion poolside. You look around frantically for your kids, push your way through the crowd, and find the lifeguards tending to your youngest who, luckily, is shaken but okay.

That's a chilling scenario, isn't it. I'm certainly glad, for the sake of my kids (yes, I have two young ones) and others', that the Y does not allow children under the age of 6 to be left unattended in the pool, while their mothers nurse or for any other reason.

Take the time to contact the Ann Arbor Y on your own. I did, and having done so, it's very clear to me that this was an issue of neglect on the part of the mother, not the Y's discomfort with the harmless act of nursing. Should mothers have a right to nurse their babies when they're hungry? Sure. Should mothers have a right to break safety rules to do so? Absolutely not.

Y User, Did you bother to notice how the Y changes the story everytime they tell it? At least this time, they came up with a really good sounding reason (no matter how untrue). Is this the pro-family Y you know?

Meg, But now, according to the latest responses from the y, it wasn't about feeding at the pool and following recommendations from the health department. Now it's about safety, and who can argue with that?Just ask Y user. You really should keep up with this... the story is a fast mover.